PLACING THE ‘NATURAL’ EDGES OF A METROPOLITAN REGION

THROUGH MULTIPLE RESIDENCY:

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN FORM IN ’S ‘ COUNTRY’

by

Nik Luka

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography Graduate Department of Geography and Programme in Planning University of Toronto

© Copyright by Nik Luka 2006

Placing the ‘natural’ edges of a metropolitan region through multiple residency: Landscape and urban form in Toronto’s ‘cottage country’

Doctor of Philosophy in Geography (2006) Nik Luka (Graduate) Department of Geography and Programme in Planning University of Toronto

Abstract

This study examines certain ‘cottage’ or water-oriented second-home settings of central to assert that they have effectively become part of the (GTA), a major metropolitan region now undergoing rapid population growth. The central thesis is that this so-called ‘cottage country’ must be considered part of the primary life-space for many individuals and households based in the GTA. Multiple residency—the social-spatial practice by which households live in more than one dwelling—is examined to make sense of what now comprises the Toronto-centred urban territory or ‘metapolis’ and its housing markets, while also enabling us to ‘place’ the ‘natural’ edges of this metropolitan area in at least two important ways. It first helps to demonstrate certain spatial qualities of the GTA as an unevenly urban territory. At the same time, the waterfront components of ‘cottage country’ are ‘living edges’ in landscape ecology terms and significant sites or ‘places’ that enable individuals and households to situate themselves within abstract notions of ‘nature’ and the ‘wilderness’—ideas about land and landscape that have long held sway in Canadian cultural discourses. The mixed quantitative and qualitative methodology employed here includes a generalised social history, a detailed questionnaire (n=200), and in-depth interviews with cottage users (n=30) in three discrete second- home settings. These case study areas are situated within broader discourses and processes of transformation, exploring certain dynamics of urban form, structure, and metropolitan growth while also examining important dimensions of how people think about space, place, landscape, and what has been called the ‘sense of region’— all of which are arguably revealed by ‘cottaging’ as a culturally meaningful social practice. Conceptually, the research presented here is thus a dialogue between markets and meaning. Beyond its empirical contributions, this study is intended to assert the importance of an epistemological approach to landscape and urban form— the domains of cultural and urban geography, respectively—in concert. Such an approach is needed if we are to substantively examine abstract processes, narratives, and/or conceptualisations of space and landscape without neglecting to systematically ground them in place and in the materiality of urban form.

ii C O N T E N T

List of Tables ...... x

List of Maps ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xiii

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Defining and second homes 4 1.2 The problématique of cottage country 6 1.3 The kind of study this is 11 f

2 Review of the literature ...... 13

2.1 Early work: the scholarly ‘discovery’ of the second-home phenomenon 13 2.2 The recent renaissance of second-home studies 20 2.3 Synthesis: Thematic concerns and missing elements 29 f

3 Conceptual framework ...... 37

3.1 Epistemological antecedents 37 3.1.1. Urban form studies 39 3.1.2. Environment-behaviour studies 46 3.1.3. Missing links: theories of social practice and structuration 56 3.2 Synthesis 61

vi

4 Research questions and methodology ...... 66

4.1 Clarification of terminology and approach 66 4.2 Research questions 67 4.2.1 What are the characteristic settlement patterns of central Ontario cottage country, and how are these now changing? 67 4.2.2. What are the key motivations for the social practice of cottaging in central Ontario, and in what ways have these changed over time? 68 4.2.3. In what ways does central Ontario cottage country fit into the housing markets of the Toronto-centred metropolitan region as revealed by users’ residential biographies? 68 4.2.4. As a cultural landscape, does ‘cottage country’ constitute a generic category of landscape and urban form in the minds of its users, and if so, how? 69 4.3 Research methodology 70 4.3.1. Study territories and selection of specific case study settings 73 4.3.2. Spatial analysis methods: Examining urban form 80 4.3.3. Methods for tapping into meaning: Assessing landscape 81 4.3.4. Supplementary methods 86

5 Central Ontario’s cottage settings: landscape ecology, settlement patterns, and social history ...... 87

5.1 The landscape ecology context 87 5.2 Central Ontario becomes a cottaging destination 90 5.2.1. The rise of cottage country tourism, 1875-1920 90 5.2.2. The first boom in cottage construction, 1920-1945 95 5.2.3. The postwar ‘democratisation’ of cottaging, 1945-1975 99 5.2.4. After the boom: the bust ... and the echo, 1975-1990 104 5.3 Contemporary changes in central Ontario cottage country 106

vii

6 Empirical findings: Online questionnaire ...... 116

6.1 Sample profile 116 6.2 The cottage property as part of the metropolitan housing system 119 6.2.1. Cottage-residential biographies 119 6.2.2. Patterns of multiple residency and commuting 122 6.2.3. The cottage property as part of a longer-term housing strategy 127 6.3 Enduring landscape and urban form qualities of the cottage setting 129 6.3.1. The cottage dwelling as a structure-in-context 129 6.3.2. Cottage settings as places of high environmental quality 131 6.3.3. Cottage country as a generic settlement category 134 6.4 Trouble in paradise? Respondent views on continuity and change 138 6.4.1. Cottage settings as home landscapes 138 6.4.2. Care and concern over perceived changes 142

7 Case study areas: context and historical overview ...... 151

7.1 The Severn River from Sparrow to Gloucester Pool 151 7.2 Thunder Bay Beach 159 7.3 Crystal Lake 171

8 Empirical findings: case study areas ...... 179

8.1 The respondents and their cottage country housing careers 179 8.1.1. Sample socio-demographic profiles 179 8.1.2. Respondent cottage-residential biographies 182 8.1.3. The metropolitan context: Multiple residency, commuting, and longer-term housing strategies 189 8.2 The peculiarity of place: the case study areas through respondents’ eyes 195 8.2.1. Congruency of the case study areas with generic notions of landscape and urban form 195 8.2.2. Mapping cottage country: the peculiarities of place 199 8.2.3. Situating the case study areas relative to the 210 Toronto metropolitan region

viii

9 Synthesis, discussion, and implications ...... 220

9.1 General synthesis of results 266 9.2 Discussion of research questions 222 9.2.1. What are the characteristic settlement patterns of central Ontario cottage country, and how are these now changing? 222 9.2.2. As a cultural landscape, how does ‘cottage country’ constitute a generic category of landscape and urban form in the minds of its users? 226 9.2.3. What are the key motivations for the social practice of cottaging in central Ontario, and in what ways have these changed over time? 230 9.2.4. In what ways does central Ontario cottage country fit into the housing markets of the Toronto-centred metropolitan region as revealed by users’ residential biographies? 239 9.3 Towards a richer epistemology of landscape and urban form 242 9.4 Directions for future research and coda 246

Appendices ...... 251

A Outreach materials, offprint of the online questionnaire instrument, and in-depth interview guide 251 B Human settlement in central Ontario cottage country to the 1870s 278

References ...... 286

1. Published scholarly sources 286 2. Dissertations and other unpublished scholarly sources 314 3. Statistics data 315 4. Miscellaneous government reports, maps, and archival material 316 5. Interviews and personal communications 317 6. Newspaper and magazine articles 317 7. Popular literature and general interest websites 317 8. Fiction and poetry 320 9. Miscellaneous unpublished material 321

ix LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Second-home ownership and population characteristics in Ontario, 1997-2003.

2.1 Summary of whether or not the three central preoccupations of this study are addressed by key contemporary observers and/or studies of second homes, including the geographical context in question for each

2.2 Summary of whether or not the three central preoccupations of this study are addressed by studies that have focused in whole or in part on central Ontario (arranged in chronological order)

4.1 Summary of map information for the three case study areas by period or ‘moment’ showing the year as of which the data were current (as indicated on the original NTS mapsheets)

4.2 Basic demographic characteristics of online questionnaire respondents (n=200).

6.1 Mode of tenure among respondents: cottage country and primary dwelling, if separate

6.2 Ten most strongly represented ethnic groups among online questionnaire respondents in rank order (n=200; categories are not mutually exclusive; ‘ø’ denotes p < 0.0005)

6.3 The five most common postal code forward sortation area (FSA) clusters within the 416 area of Muskoka Association members’ primary dwellings (n=1 280)

6.4 Respondent reactions to statements on ‘nature’ and ‘wildlife’ in cottage settings as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree; note that the third of the three statements is inversely formulated)

6.5 Respondent reactions to statements on cottage settings as home landscapes as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)

6.6 Respondent reactions to statements on social networks and community life in cottage settings as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)

8.1 Characteristics of interview participants: variations in key socio-demographic variables by case study setting.

8.2 Characteristics of interview participants: variations in key socio-demographic variables by residential status.

x LIST OF MAPS

1.1 Sketch-map of central Ontario highlighting the two major geophysical units and the ‘edge’ of the Canadian Shield along with urban centres (shown as shaded areas)

1.2 Sketch-map of central Ontario showing major and secondary highways and its four most widely-recognised ‘cottage country’ areas: -Huronia (1), Muskoka (2), Haliburton (3), and the (4).

1.3 Roy Wolfe’s (1951) map showing the proportion of second homes owned by Toronto households (based on Wolfe, 1951: 28).

2.1 Distribution of second-home properties in southern Ontario by township, using 1966 data (based on Mai, 1971: Figure 20; English notes added to replace the German).

4.1 Simplified map of central Ontario highlighting its ‘cottage country’ territories; also shown are major expressways and highways as well as Toronto and other major towns or cities.

4.2 Sketch map highlighting the major westerly axis and the minor north-easterly axis of central Ontario cottage country.

4.3 A simplified map of the three major Muskoka Lakes.

4.4 A simplified map of the Kawartha Lakes, labelled as follows: 1–Balsam Lake; 2–Cameron Lake; 3–Sturgeon Lake; 4–; 5–Buckhorn Lake; 6–Chemong Lake; 7–Lower Buckhorn Lake; 8–Stony Lake; 9–Clear Lake; 10–Katchewanooka Lake.

4.5 Location of the case study districts within central Ontario cottage country (T=Thunder Bay; S=Severn River; C=Crystal Lake).

5.1 Major watershed units in central Ontario cottage country.

5.2 Excerpt from NTS sheet 31E4 (NRCan, 1996) showing Royal Muskoka Island and its closely-spaced 1950s cottage properties that contrast with others in the vicinity, which had been built up much earlier in the 20th century.

5.3 A typical ‘single-tier necklace’ pattern of road-access private cottages built in the postwar boom years (Kennisis Lake).

7.1 Simplified sketch map of the Severn River in context with the case study area encircled.

7.2 Urban form along the Severn River ca 1932 (data source: NTS Sheet 31DNW, 1940).

7.3 Urban form along the Severn River ca 1951 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D13, Edition 1 [1957] and 31D14, Edition 1 [1956]).

7.4 Urban form along the Severn River ca 1969 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D13, Edition 2 [1973] and 31D14, Edition 2 [1974]).

7.5 Urban form along the Severn River ca 1989 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D13, Edition 5 [2000] and 31D14, Edition 4 [1994]).

7.6 Simplified sketch map of Thunder Bay in context with the case study area encircled.

7.7 Excerpt from NTS Sheet 41A (preliminary edition, published 1947) showing roads and basic topography in the Thunder Bay area.

7.8 Urban form at Thunder Bay, ca 1951 (data source: NTS Sheet 41A16, Edition 1 [1954]) .

7.9 Urban form at Thunder Bay, ca 1966 (data source: NTS Sheet 41A16, Edition 2 [1973]).

xi LIST OF MAPS (CONTINUED)

7.10 Urban form at Thunder Bay, ca 1976 (data source: NTS Sheet 41A16, Edition 3 [1979]) .

7.11 Urban form at Thunder Bay, ca 1989 (data source: NTS Sheet 41A16, Edition 4 [1993]).

7.12 Excerpt from NTS Sheet 41A16, Edition 4 (1993), showing the Thunder Bay case study area, ca 1989.

7.13 Simplified sketch map of Crystal Lake in context with the case study area encircled.

7.14 Excerpt from NTS Sheet 41D, published in 1940, showing Crystal Lake and vicinity.

7.15 Urban form at Crystal Lake, ca 1951 (data source: NTS Sheet 31D-NE [1953]).

7.16 Urban form at Crystal Lake, ca 1956 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D09, Edition 1 [1958]; 31D10, Edition 2 [1958]; 31D15, Edition 1-East [1958]; 31D16 Edition 1-West [1958]).

7.17 Urban form at Crystal Lake, ca 1971 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D09, Edition 3 [1971]; 31D10, Edition 3 [1971]; 31D15, Edition 2 [1972]; 31D16 Edition 2 [1971]).

7.18 Urban form at Crystal Lake, ca 1989 (data sources: NTS Sheets 31D09, Edition 5 [1994]; 31D10, Edition 5 [1994]; 31D15, Edition 4 [1994]; 31D16 Edition 4 [1994])

B1 The approximate extent of non-aboriginal settlement in 19th-century southern Ontario (Map based on Keane & Reade, 1990).

B2 Simplified map of the Trent-Severn Waterway, showing the 45 locks linking Georgian Bay and (Map: Friends of the Trent-Severn Waterway, 2004).

xii LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Summary of trend lines for distances travelled by Toronto-area residents for four recreation and tourism activities based on 1966 data; 100 miles is equivalent to 140km (based on the work of Greer & Wall, 1979: 243).

2.2 Two models of second-home markets: diagram (a) corresponds to the British situation, while diagram (b) is typical of continental Europe, derived from the literature reviewed above (based on the work of Gallent et al., 2005: 141).

3.1 A schematic representation of the city’s countryside (based on Bryant et al., 2000).

3.2 Diagrammatic representation of ‘patches’ linked by ‘corridors’ as discussed in landscape ecology theory (based on Dramstad et al., 1996).

3.3 Built form and lot lines, Balsam Road, Toronto, 1901.

3.4 Built form and lot lines, Balsam Road, Toronto, 1921.

3.5 Built form and lot lines, Balsam Road, Toronto, 1991.

3.6 Antecedents for this conceptual framework on a continuum from landscape to urban form.

3.7 Depiction of conceptual approaches culled from the literature on the mock plane of landscape and urban form (EBS = environment-behaviour studies; SPS = social practice and structuration; UFS = urban form studies).

4.1 Landscape and urban form as the confluence of societies, individuals, and physical environments.

4.2 Matrix depicting specific components or ‘tasks’ for this study, grouped into three axes—morphology, experience, and meaning—while also specifying which methods are used for each (see abbreviation key on next page).

4.3 View of a typical scene in the Muskoka Lake territory: deep water, steep rocky shores, and coniferous woods.

4.4 View of a typical scene in the Kawartha Lake territory: shallow water, flat sandy shores, and deciduous woods.

5.1 An especially vivid example of banding in granite along Highway 400 near Parry Sound.

5.2 A 1908 advertisement in the Toronto Telegram for the Grand Trunk line to Gravenhurst

5.3 … and a 1908 advertisement on the same page of the Telegram for the rival Canadian Pacific line to Bala.

5.4 A postcard showing Muskoka Wharf train station on the Grand Trunk Line, ca 1900.

5.5 A 1908 postcard of Muskoka’s Windermere House; the caption notes its location on the Grand Trunk Railway.

5.6 Steamer Segwun, launched in 1887 and now restored, still in regular service on the Muskoka Lakes

5.7 Steamer Sagamo, flagship of the Muskoka Lakes fleet, from an undated postcard.

5.8 A slightly romanticised depiction of the Royal Muskoka Hotel on Lake Rosseau from a period postcard.

5.9 A spacious cottage on Georgian Bay built in the early 20th century.

5.10 Typical central Ontario cottage architecture: the ‘Muskoka Room’ (Balsam Lake).

xiii LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

5.11 Interior view of the ‘Muskoka Room’ shown in Figure 5.10.

5.12 This Lake Joseph cottage typifies a Muskoka vernacular style.

5.13 These cottages at Thunder Beach are good examples of a common Georgian Bay vernacular style.

5.14 A luxurious turn-of-the-century ‘cottage’ compound on Lake Muskoka.

5.15 Period postcard showing part of the Bigwin Inn complex: the nightclub (left) and main dining hall, both designed to evoke the image of a Venetian palace on the water.

5.16 The Bigwin Pavilion housed a huge dance hall. In front of the Pavilion are the Inn’s main wharf and the tender used to ferry guests to and from the island.

5.17 Aerial view of Royal Muskoka Island from the northeast— a similar view to the postcard image shown in Figure 5.8 (above)—clearly showing the urban form effects of its narrow-lot settlement pattern.

5.18 Aerial view of another typical ‘single-tier necklace’ pattern of road-access private cottages built in the postwar boom years (Lake Muskoka).

5.19 Houses at Pirate’s Glen, Pigeon Lake.

5.20 Waterfront houses at Pirate’s Glen, Pigeon Lake.

5.21 Sign at entrance to Pirate’s Glen on Pigeon Lake.

5.22 Port 32, a ‘designer’ lakeside subdivision of detached houses in Bobcaygeon.

5.23 Lakeside condominiums in Muskoka.

5.24 2003 real estate listing for a condominium unit in the town of Penetanguishene (MLS Canada).

5.25 Townhouses on the Muskoka River in Bracebridge (view taken along a public promenade separating units from the riverbank, where residents have docking facilities).

5.26 2003 real estate advertisement for the Bracebridge townhouses shown in Figure 5.25.

5.27 ‘Bayshore Village’ subdivision on the northeast shore of .

5.28 Summer cottages converted to or replaced by permanent houses on the east shore of Lake Simcoe.

5.29 Suburban road and lot patterns on the west shore of Lake Simcoe.

5.30 Floorplan and front façade images for a typical fractional ownership unit (‘The Settler’) as advertised in promotional material.

5.31 Billboard advertising fractional-ownership units to be built on the site of a resort on Lake Muskoka, guests of which can still be seen in the background.

5.32 ‘The Cottages at Port Stanton’—promotional photo showing typical fractional ownership units.

5.33 Site plan of ‘The Cottages at Port Stanton’ showing individual units, parking pads, and common amenities.

5.34 Promotional material for ‘Touchstone on Lake Muskoka’ showing ‘The Cascades’—one part of the large build- out now underway

5.35 Advertisement from Toronto Life magazine for ‘Touchstone on Lake Muskoka (August 2004).

5.36 Looking west across the site of the Muskoka Wharf project now underway in Gravenhurst; the steamer Segwun is visible at the dock to the left.

xiv LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

5.37 Site plan for the Muskoka Wharf project, showing new public infrastructure, hotel and condominium clusters, among other components.

5.38 Image from the promotional website for the speculator-led portions of the Muskoka Wharf project.

6.1 Respondents’ ages by 20-year cohort (n=195).

6.2 Respondents’ highest level of education attained (n=200).

6.3 Respondents’ household income before taxes (n=159).

6.4 Approximate length of respondents’ family history in Canada (n=191).

6.5 Length of time spent by respondents at the current second-home property or in area (n=200).

6.6 Length of time spent by the families of respondents at the current second-home property or in area (n=200).

6.7 Stated approximate distance between respondent’s second-home property and primary dwelling (n=200).

6.8 Location of respondents’ primary dwellings, if applicable (n=157); pie-chart on right specifies location of Toronto-based respondents within the GTA.

6.9 Months in which respondents spend time at their cottage country property over the course of a typical year (n=200).

6.10 Number of extended family members who make use of the respondent’s cottage country property over the course of a typical year (n=200).

6.11 Respondent intent to pass cottage country property down within family (n=191; no respondents chose ‘somewhat likely’).

6.12 Equipment and features of respondents’ second-home structures (n=200).

7.1 Pluck-and-scour topography on the Severn: the steep north shore (at right) contrasts with the smoother, flatter south shore (at left).

7.2 Big Chute marine railway seen in an aerial view from the north. Boats are transported down the slope in a large carriage.

7.3 A still very sparsely settled stretch of the Severn, looking downriver from Hydro Glen (CN railway bridge in foreground).

7.4 Aerial view of Gloucester Pool from the northeast showing Prism Island (left foreground) and the west shore, where there is a consistently built-up single tier of cottage properties.

7.5 A knot of cottage structures on the Severn River near Wood Bay. Among the many water-craft is a boat suspended in a cradle to keep it from being damaged by wave action on the busy waterway.

7.6 A typically narrow stretch of the Severn, looking from the south shore across to the steeper north shore.

7.7 Examples of real estate listings in the Severn River case study area; the two listings at the top are water- access only (Source: Cottage and Country Real Estate Trader, 11 March 2005).

7.8 Looking west along Centre Beach; the dark band is where a small creek crosses the sand.

7.9 Aerial view from the east showing the headland called Mark’s Point.

xv LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

7.10 A 2005 aerial view taken in early spring of the ice-ringed shoreline just east of Silver Birch Beach, showing the rocky shoreline originally found there.

7.11 Aerial view of Centre Beach looking south, showing the proximity of Thunder Bay to farmland still in active use.

7.12 Farmsteads near Thunder Bay.

7.13 The Roman Catholic Chapel of St Florence and its grounds.

7.14 Aerial view (2005) from the north of Centre Beach showing the Thunder Beach Road, the church of St Florence, and the open space with the baseball diamond.

7.15 Aerial view (2005) of cottage properties along Silver Birch Beach; contrast the groyned shoreline shown here with that of Figure 7.10 (above).

7.16 A year-round house in the Morneau-Belcourt subdivision.

7.17 ‘Aux Vents’ main building still under construction, 2003.

7.18 Aerial view of the Thunder Bay Homes site (2005), showing the ‘Aux Vents’ compound where there had long been an open space in front of where the original Inn stood (between the two longer structures).

7.19 Stone wall surrounding the ‘Aux Vents’ compound.

7.20 Advertising billboard at the ‘gates’ to Cedar Ridge showing common tennis courts and ‘waterfront boating facility’ at the extreme right (photo taken in 2003).

7.21 Advertising billboard on a farm near Cedar Point (photo taken in 2003).

7.22 Aerial view (2005) of the entrance to Cedar Ridge from the southeast. The smaller structures at the extreme right are houses on the adjacent Mohawk territory.

7.23 Aerial view of Crystal Lake from the west showing its convoluted shoreline.

7.24 Crystal Lake’s onetime dance hall, now disused.

7.25 A typical cottage from the first wave of construction in the 1940s and 1950s on Crystal Lake.

7.26 Closely-packed cottage structures on Crystal Lake.

7.27 Aerial view of closely-packed cottage structures on Crystal Lake.

7.28 A slightly whimsical map of the Back Bay subdivision near the northwest corner of Crystal Lake.

7.29 Example of replacement at Crystal Lake: an older cottage tucked into the trees on the left contrasts with the large year-round dwelling on the right.

7.30 Example of replacement at Crystal Lake: the cabin on the left is the original summer cottage, while the large dwelling on the right is a year-round dwelling.

8.1 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in his 40s on Gloucester Pool depicting his cottage dwelling (far left), the cottage waterfront (middle) and the lake in its broader geographical context (right).

8.2 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in her 50s on the Severn River just above the Big Chute depicting her cottage setting.

8.3 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in his 60s on the Severn River just below Severn Falls depicting his cottage in context.

xvi LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

8.4 Mental map drawn by a lifelong seasonal cottager in his 70s at Thunder Bay.

8.5 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in his 40s at Thunder Bay.

8.6 Mental map drawn by a year-round cottager in his 50s at Thunder Bay.

8.7 Mental map drawn by a year-round cottager in her 50s at Thunder Bay.

8.8 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in his 40s at Crystal Lake.

8.9 Mental map drawn by a ‘permanent cottager’ in his 60s at Crystal Lake.

8.10 Mental map drawn by a seasonal cottager in his 50s at Crystal Lake.

9.1 Example of dense cottage settlement that seem incongruent with ideas of the ‘typical’ central Ontario pattern (Nottawasaga Bay; excerpted from Township of Tiny, 2005: A15)

9.2 Example of fine-grained shoreline lot pattern in a central Ontario cottage setting; contrast with denser fabric shown on Figure 9.1 (excerpted from Township of Tiny, 2005: A34)

9.3 IBM advertisement carried in pan-Canadian magazines, ca 1983, depicting a central Ontario cottage (actually on Lake of Bays) as an archetypically ‘familiar’ setting.

B1 An excerpt from Marion Sewell’s 1967 painting of Jean de Brébeuf amidst the landscape of Huronia, the west wind billowing in his blackrobe (now in a private collection).

B2 Postcard showing a steamer picking its way through a log boom on the Muskoka River.

xvii